Is chemistry 'The Central Science'? How are different sciences related? Co-citations, reductionism, emergence, and posets

Abstract

According to a widely used introductory chemistry text by T. E. Brown et al., 1 chemistry is 'The Central Science'. But scientometric co-citation analyses indicate that biochemistry seems presently to be more interconnected to other sciences. On the other hand, mathematics is considered by many to permeate all sciences and hence might compete as the choice for centrality. A critical commentary and argument leads to a proposal for an alternative partially ordered hierarchical "framework" map of sciences. This argument is supplemented by a scientometric approach based on university course requirements for different curricula, so as to support our partially ordered map. This alternative "framework" mapping then is seen to indicate a special position for chemistry, as where significant branching begins. Chemistry and scientometric inter-relationsIn order to find an answer to the lead title question, the second question inextricably arises. Thence we here address these two questions, through an examination of several related topics: different proposed inter-relationships amongst the sciences, their partially ordered "framework" hierarchy, the related complementarity of reductionism and emergence, the development of interdisciplinary sciences, trends in the publication of new scientific journals, and points relating to the centrality of chemistry. It is emphasized that the title questions may be answered from two viewpoints -firstly, on

Toward a consensus map of science

“…Eight maps are by a group of three researchers in the United States presenting separately (Klavans, 2002;Boyack, 2009), in pairs (Klavans & Boyack, 2007, 2008Klavans, Boyack, & Patek, 2008), or all three (Boyack, Klavans, & Börner) together (Boyack, Klavans, & Börner, 2005;Boyack, Börner, & Klavans, in press). Two maps are by individuals in a large research group in Spain (Moya-Anegón et al, 2007, two maps are in one paper by Balaban and Klein (2006), and single maps were generated by two other research groups (Leydesdorff & Rafols, 2007;Rosvall & Bergstrom, 2008).…”

“…480), In many respects the outer edges of these side panels could properly be joined by wrapping the chart around a cylinder; thus Mechanical Engineering and Electrical Engineering would thereby be justifiably brought together, as well as the two areas which it has been convenient to provide for Chemical Engineering. Balaban and Klein (2006, Figure 2) present a much more recent expert-based map, and argue that that science is hierarchically ordered. The same order of fundamental disciplines is suggested-mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology-followed by applied areas.…”

“…Thus, although Balaban and Klein argue for a hierarchy of disciplines, it takes little imagination to complete the circle (bottom to top) by linking the two humanities areas. Bernal (1939), Ellingham (1948), and Balaban (Balaban & Klein, 2006) each stress the hierarchical nature of science. All agree that there is an ordering between mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology.…”

“…Rather, they suggest that each fundamental discipline has its own set of applied sciences. Balaban and Klein (2006), however, argue that chemistry is more centric. In their map, it is the highest science in the hierarchy where branching occurs, and gives rise to four applied areas (earth science, environmental science, computer technology, and engineering).…”

“…Balaban and Klein (2006, Figure 3), in the second map shown in their paper, suggest a hierarchy of science based on examination of course prerequisites in the undergraduate catalog of courses offered at Texas A&M University. Their approach to partitioning is similar to the one used by experts (including their own "expert" map from the same paper); they start with traditional categories and then modify the categories based on the collection of course requirements.…”